Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A financial trustee acting on behalf of bondholders filed a proof of claim for $8.5 billion in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy-like restructuring proceedings. The claim was based on allegations that the Commonwealth had impaired statutory and constitutional rights that were intended to protect bondholders in connection with revenue bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), a public utility corporation. The Commonwealth had enacted laws that, according to the trustee, limited PREPA’s ability to set rates and satisfy its bond obligations, thereby breaching a statutory covenant not to impair PREPA’s ability to repay the bonds. The trustee characterized these statutory protections as a material inducement for investors to purchase the bonds.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, acting as the Title III court under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), had previously confirmed the Commonwealth’s Plan of Adjustment. This Plan created separate classes of claims, including one (Class 64) for claims subordinated under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), which covers damages “arising from the purchase or sale” of a debtor’s security. The trustee’s claim was classified in Class 64, which receives no distribution, rather than as a general unsecured claim (Class 58), which would have allowed a partial recovery. The district court held that the trustee’s claim was properly subordinated under § 510(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that § 510(b) applies to the trustee’s claim because the damages sought arose from the purchase of PREPA’s revenue bonds, induced by the alleged statutory protections. The court also rejected procedural and constitutional avoidance arguments, and found that any challenge to the level of subordination was waived. View "FOMB v. SIG Structured Products, LLC" on Justia Law

A medical institution in Puerto Rico borrowed over $10 million from a bank in 1984 to build a hospital, but soon disputes arose regarding the loan. The bank claimed the institution defaulted, while the institution asserted the bank failed to disburse funds as required. Litigation and bankruptcy proceedings followed. In 1991, the parties settled, but the terms of that settlement—whether the debt was split into interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing portions—remained contested. Over the next decades, the loan changed hands, and in 2013 the institution filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again. The current loan-holder claimed a significantly higher outstanding balance than the institution believed was owed, due in part to differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and subsequent bankruptcy plan.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico previously addressed these disputes. It issued orders requiring the institution to demonstrate, with evidence, that the 1991 agreement created a non-interest-bearing note and that it had made payments in accordance with the bankruptcy plan. The court denied discovery, required summary judgment briefing, and ultimately issued an order with minimal analysis, granting the loan-holder’s motion to dismiss and denying the institution’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s reasoning was ambiguous, referencing both summary judgment and pleading standards, and did not clearly identify the basis for its decision.On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirmed, concluding the bankruptcy plan did not incorporate the 1991 bifurcated note arrangement. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, found the bankruptcy court’s order insufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit vacated the lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to clarify its reasoning, identify the applicable legal standards, and consider whether summary judgment or further fact-finding is appropriate. View "Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

LUMA Energy, LLC and LUMA Energy ServCo, LLC entered into a long-term contract to operate and maintain Puerto Rico’s electric power transmission and distribution system, previously managed by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), a Title III debtor under PROMESA. The agreement included a liability waiver provision, which was subsequently approved with modifications by the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau (PREB). After LUMA invoked the waiver to deny numerous consumer claims, the Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) brought suit in Puerto Rico’s courts against LUMA, PREPA, and PREB, challenging the constitutionality of the waiver. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico accepted the case for review.While the DACO action was pending, LUMA, without participation from PREPA or the Financial Oversight and Management Board (the Board), sought an order from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (acting as the Title III court) to enforce the automatic bankruptcy stay and halt the DACO litigation. The Title III court denied LUMA’s motion, finding the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay applicable because DACO’s action was an exercise of governmental authority to protect consumers. LUMA appealed this order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The main holding was that LUMA lacked statutory standing to appeal the Title III court’s denial of its motion to enforce the automatic stay. The First Circuit clarified that LUMA was not a “person aggrieved” for purposes of appellate standing under the Bankruptcy Code as incorporated by PROMESA, because LUMA did not show it suffered a direct and adverse pecuniary injury of the type the automatic stay is meant to prevent. Accordingly, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "LUMA Energy LLC v. Puerto Rico Dep't of Consumer Affairs" on Justia Law

Two individuals attended a demonstration in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on May 1, 2018, where they allege that officers of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau used excessive force against them, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. In April 2019, they filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting violations of their constitutional rights and seeking both injunctive and monetary relief. The suits named the then-Governor and other officials and employees of the Commonwealth, including police officers, as defendants, with claims brought against some defendants in their personal capacities.During this time, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was undergoing bankruptcy-like restructuring under Title III of PROMESA, and, in 2022, the Title III court confirmed a Plan of Adjustment, which discharged certain claims against the Commonwealth and enjoined pursuit of those claims. The district court stayed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit pending a determination of whether the Plan discharged their claims. On September 30, 2025, the Title III court held that the Plan did not discharge personal-capacity claims against Commonwealth officials or employees, thus allowing the plaintiffs to proceed. The Financial Oversight and Management Board appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the Title III court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that the discharge and related injunction in the confirmed Plan of Adjustment do not apply to claims against Commonwealth officers or employees sued in their personal capacities. The court reasoned that discharging such claims would amount to a non-consensual third-party release, which the Plan expressly does not provide. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the Title III court’s decision in full. View "Hernandez Zorilla v. FOMB" on Justia Law

A robotics company, whose primary product is a well-known robot vacuum, agreed in August 2022 to be acquired by a major online retailer. Over the next eighteen months, the companies sought approval for the merger from regulatory authorities in the United States and Europe. In January 2024, facing significant regulatory obstacles, the parties abandoned the merger. Following this, shareholders of the robotics company, led by an investment fund, brought a securities fraud class action against the company’s CEO and CFO. They alleged that during the merger’s review period, company statements misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the likelihood of regulatory approval, particularly concerning the company’s expectation of approval and the acquirer’s cooperation with regulators.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable material misrepresentation or omission and did not adequately allege scienter (the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing). During the appeal, the robotics company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in its dismissal from the appeal, which continued as to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim for most of the statements challenged by the plaintiffs, affirming dismissal as to those. However, the court found that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that an August 24, 2023, proxy statement expressed an opinion about expected regulatory approval while omitting important contrary information regarding European regulatory concerns and the acquirer’s refusal to cooperate. This omission, in the circumstances, was sufficient to state a claim as to that statement. The dismissal was reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle" on Justia Law

Two former police officers sued their employer, the Puerto Rico Police Department, alleging illegal retaliation after one reported age discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the other testified in support. The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, they suffered adverse employment actions such as dangerous shift changes, loss of duties, and fabricated complaints. The challenged conduct primarily occurred after Puerto Rico filed for financial reorganization under PROMESA, a federal statute enacted in response to the Commonwealth’s fiscal crisis.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the case while Puerto Rico’s reorganization plan was pending in the Title III court. After the reorganization plan’s "Effective Date" passed, and while the plaintiffs’ suit was ongoing, the Department asserted that the claims had been discharged under the plan because the plaintiffs had not timely filed proofs of claim. The District Court agreed, permanently stayed the case, and enjoined the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, finding that the claims must have arisen at least in part before the plan’s Effective Date since the suit was filed prior to that date. The District Court did not address the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument or their contention that post-petition claims were not dischargeable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims qualified as administrative expense claims under PROMESA (via incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code), and because the plaintiffs did not timely file such claims before the administrative claims bar date, they were discharged by the plan. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument, finding no inconsistency in the Department’s litigation positions. The First Circuit’s judgment affirmed the permanent stay and injunction. View "Villalobos-Santana v. PR Police Department" on Justia Law

Two individuals challenged the Puerto Rican electoral commission and its acting president, arguing that restrictions on early and absentee voting during the 2020 general election unlawfully burdened the right to vote for citizens over sixty, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2020, they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief on constitutional grounds. The district court promptly issued a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, allowing voters over sixty to vote early by mail. After judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $65,000 in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.While the fee motion was pending, Puerto Rico’s government was in the process of debt restructuring under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). The restructuring plan, confirmed in January 2022, discharged claims against Puerto Rico arising before the plan’s effective date unless creditors filed proof of claim by a set deadline. Defendants argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that the attorneys’ fees award was subject to the plan’s discharge and enjoined from collection, because the plaintiffs had not filed a timely administrative expense claim. The district court rejected this, finding the fee award unrelated to the bankruptcy case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the claim for attorneys’ fees, though arising from post-petition litigation, related to events before the plan’s effective date. The court held that because the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the restructuring proceedings but did not file a timely proof of claim, their fee claim was discharged under the confirmed plan and enjoined from collection. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order, holding that the discharge injunction applied to the attorneys’ fee award. View "Ocasio v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones" on Justia Law

Two individuals entered into a loan agreement and mortgage with a bank in Puerto Rico, using their home as collateral. After a decade, they faced financial difficulties and stopped making payments. The bank denied a request to modify the loan but proposed a short sale. The bank then initiated foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, resulting in a judgment against the borrowers. Multiple short sale offers were rejected until one was conditionally accepted, but the sale did not close in time and the home was foreclosed. Subsequently, the bank garnished funds from the borrowers, who then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico confirmed the borrowers’ Chapter 13 plan, noting their intent to pursue claims against the bank. The borrowers filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages and other relief. The bank moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, but the bankruptcy court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The borrowers later filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and moved to withdraw the adversary proceeding to the district court. The district court denied the withdrawal as untimely and dismissed the separate federal case. After the borrowers completed their bankruptcy plan and received a discharge, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding it automatically lost jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding post-discharge. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to reassess jurisdiction and properly address the borrowers’ motion for withdrawal and their jury trial request. View "Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Steven and Virginia Savage were officers and sole shareholders of a company that designed and installed digital planetarium equipment. When their company experienced financial distress, they used personal funds and credit cards to support business operations, but the company eventually defaulted on a large loan personally guaranteed by the Savages. In the year preceding their bankruptcy filing, the Savages received over $700,000 from the company, which they failed to fully disclose in their bankruptcy filings. Their bankruptcy schedules did not mention this income, and significant portions of the transferred funds were not satisfactorily explained, especially regarding rent payments from the company to the Savages and the use of those funds.After the company and the Savages filed for bankruptcy, the creditor, Coastal Capital, objected to the Savages’ discharge in their Chapter 7 proceedings. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire held a bench trial and found that, although the Savages explained most of the company funds they received, they failed to account for over $56,000. The court denied the Savages a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) for failing to satisfactorily explain the loss or deficiency of assets. The Savages’ post-trial motions were denied, and the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that § 727(a)(5) does not require a “substantial” loss of assets to deny discharge, nor does it require that the unaccounted-for funds be enough to pay all liabilities. It also found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations and rejected the Savages’ arguments regarding destruction of evidence and the sufficiency of their explanations. The denial of discharge was affirmed. View "Coastal Capital, LLC v. Savage" on Justia Law

In December 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts partially recognized a multi-million-dollar foreign judgment obtained by PCC Rokita, S.A. against HH Technology Corp. (HHT). Shortly thereafter, HHT executed a trust agreement and an assignment for the benefit of creditors to wind itself down. About two months later, PCC Rokita petitioned the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts to involuntarily place HHT into Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Assignee moved to dismiss the involuntary petition, submitting a list of fifteen creditors of HHT that were allegedly qualified under section 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.The bankruptcy court issued an order setting a deadline for additional creditors to join the involuntary petition. Only one additional creditor, Shanghai Morimatsu Chemical Equipment Co., joined before the deadline. The court denied PCC Rokita's motion for an extension and subsequently denied DFT Properties, LLC's motion to join the petition after the deadline. The bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the Petitioning Creditors failed to prove that any of the twelve challenged creditors were unqualified, leading to the dismissal of the involuntary petition.The Petitioning Creditors appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. They then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court may set a deadline for creditors to join a pending involuntary petition and that a putative debtor need not plead defenses to the avoidability of a pre-petition preferential transfer in its answer to the involuntary petition. The court also found that any error in requiring the creditors to disprove defenses to avoidability was harmless. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the involuntary petition. View "PCC Rokita, S.A. v. HH Technology Corp." on Justia Law